CWA Tentative Agreement?

[700UW]

Well according to my sources it will be an IAM win.

 

[737823]

Will everyone gather in a room at the Grand Lodge like they did for UA? Someone posted a video online, but of course nothing for the IAM's defeat at DL.

Josh

 

[700UW]

The principals involved will be at the NMB's offices in DC, when the IAM is declared the winner.

Got the crow ready to cook for you joshie.

And for UA where the IAM won again, they were at the NMB's offices, I know the people personally who were there for the IAM.

 

[Kev3188]

If this is not cleared up before the vote, there's only one way to vote. Another question, how much does UA and DL contribute into their agents 401K base. It's hard for me to believe it's not more than 3%?

DL: 2% automatic, plus dollar-for-dollar matching on the next 5%, for a (possible) total of 7%...

 

[ograc]

i think it should be very evident and clear, based on the company's posture in contract negotiations, to all existing represented employees at US Passenger Service and Fleet Service the number one agenda of the company, concerning our groups, is to outsource our jobs to vendors where ever possible. In the company's opinion this is how they will achieve some of the synergies of this merger. It all comes down to scope. If you're willing to sacrifice scope language the company will most certainly eliminate your job. NO SCOPE PROTECTION! NO AGREEMENT! Get it AH and DP?

 

[usa1]

DL: 2% automatic, plus dollar-for-dollar matching on the next 5%, for a (possible) total of 7%...

That's 7%? What's up with this TA?

 

[mike33]

They are getting equity to make up for their concessions, it has nothing to do with US.

72% of the new stock is going to AA's creditors and the employees of AA are creditors.

BULLshit!

When US Airways and American Airlines announced their merger on Feb. 14, officials put the value of the merger at $11 billion.​

That was based on the price of US Airways common stock as of Feb. 13, the diluted number of shares and the fact that US Airways shareholders would own 28 percent of the new American Airlines Group after the merger.​

So the math was like this:​

$14.66 a share X 207.9 million diluted shares is $3.05 billion.​

The $3.05 billion is 28 percent of $10.89 billion. That’s how we got to $11 billion.​

However, the official creditors committee noted in a filing Thursday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court that that was then and this is now.​

“The estimated value of the merger appears to have increased since February 13, 2013,” the committee stated. “Based on the trading price of US Airways’ securities on July 29, 2013, the Plan voting deadline, the value of the Merger appears to have increased from $11 billion to approximately $14.3 billion.”​

Actually, the deal’s value peaked at $14.4 billion when US Airways stock closed at $19.38 on Aug. 1. On the other end, its bottom came on Feb. 25 when the $13.02 close indicated a deal value of $9.7 billion.​

As of Thursday’s $18.98 close of US Airways shares, the deal is worth $14.1 billion using the above formula.​

"The Merger Agreement and the Plan of Reorganization provide that the existing AMR common stock will be cancelled when the merger occurs and the Plan of Reorganization is consummated. If our Plan of Reorganization, as filed, is confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court and consummated, holders of existing AMR equity interests will be entitled to receive a distribution on account of such equity interests in the form of common stock of the merged company ."

The way i see it, a portion of the new stock is because of a percentage of Usairways stock price.
It is a combo value of the 2........... Period! I don't care who gave up what. The new stock is a combo and value went up because of it !......Not because of only Concessions.

 

[Tim Nelson]

If the ibt members vote for that after the unions hard sell, then fleet certainly stands an excellent chance of catching up to upstairs and exceeding them.

 

[usa1]

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2013/08/it-looks-like-that-11-billion-merger-between-american-airlines-and-us-airways-is-now-a-14-billion-deal.html/

 

[RezAZ]

I've been reading these boards for years now, and finally decided this is time to create an account. The following is something someone posted on a FB page...important to think about!..(especially point 3)!

So am I correct in saying that these seem to be the main five points as to why most people are voting no? If not, or if you see an error, please let me know as I am working on a flyer for people to pass out.

1- A NO vote is only for the Interim Agreement, if it’s voted down you are still protected by our current contract. You still receive all the pay raises & premiums that are in our current contract. You still have union representation if you vote no.

2-The no furlough "promise" applies only to the merger. For example, if they need to combine the PHX AA and US workforce and need to make room for 5 AA employees they cannot furlough 5 US agents based solely on the merger. HOWEVER, this DOES NOT protect us from furlough if the company downsizes stations and or reduces flight schedules due to overlap after the merger.

3-Article 2B of our contract (the article that they say doesn't apply) gives us a 4.5% raise each year for 3 years in the event of a merger; much better than just 5.4% for 18 months. If Article 2 didn't apply to the US/AA merger, then why would the company want to take it out with this Interim Agreement? Isn't that what got us our snap backs in 2012? Isn't article 2 Paragraph B what all the other union groups wished they had in their contract language?

4-The Interim Agreement means that vendors can work OUR flights, counter and reservations and though it is only 18 months, just remember two things: 1) once vendors are in, it will be VERY hard to get them out and 2) the 18 months can be extended. Neither are good things. The verbiage "and vendors" is open ended without specific language of who/what/when/where/why and for how long.

5-The IBT disagrees with the comments made by CWA regarding the interpretation of the contract Article 3(k) code sharing. It states, “The Union recognizes that the Company shall have the right to enter into marketing, alliance or code-sharing agreements with other carriers under which US Airways may perform passenger service work for the other carrier, and/or the other carrier agrees to perform passenger service work for US Airways. The Company agrees that any such agreement shall provide for a fair pro rata allocation of work (based on enplaned passengers or other appropriate measurements) between CWA-represented employees of US Airways and the U.S.-based employees of the other carrier.” We believe plain language of the last bolded sentence limits the work share to “employees of US Airways and the U.S.-based employees of the other carrier.” We can conceive of no circumstances where 3rd party vendors could be deemed to be U.S.-based employees of American Airlines. NOTE: The IBT are NOT saying don't vote for it, but they are also not saying "yes" as the CWA. This silence speaks volumes in itself. If they were in favor, wouldn't they be cheering it on? Not speaking out is a big hint as to where they all stand.

 

[mike33]

I've been reading these boards for years now, and finally decided this is time to create an account. The following is something someone posted on a FB page...important to think about!..(especially point 3)!

So am I correct in saying that these seem to be the main five points as to why most people are voting no? If not, or if you see an error, please let me know as I am working on a flyer for people to pass out.

1- A NO vote is only for the Interim Agreement, if it’s voted down you are still protected by our current contract. You still receive all the pay raises & premiums that are in our current contract. You still have union representation if you vote no.

2-The no furlough "promise" applies only to the merger. For example, if they need to combine the PHX AA and US workforce and need to make room for 5 AA employees they cannot furlough 5 US agents based solely on the merger. HOWEVER, this DOES NOT protect us from furlough if the company downsizes stations and or reduces flight schedules due to overlap after the merger.

3-Article 2B of our contract (the article that they say doesn't apply) gives us a 4.5% raise each year for 3 years in the event of a merger; much better than just 5.4% for 18 months. If Article 2 didn't apply to the US/AA merger, then why would the company want to take it out with this Interim Agreement? Isn't that what got us our snap backs in 2012? Isn't article 2 Paragraph B what all the other union groups wished they had in their contract language?

4-The Interim Agreement means that vendors can work OUR flights, counter and reservations and though it is only 18 months, just remember two things: 1) once vendors are in, it will be VERY hard to get them out and 2) the 18 months can be extended. Neither are good things. The verbiage "and vendors" is open ended without specific language of who/what/when/where/why and for how long.

5-The IBT disagrees with the comments made by CWA regarding the interpretation of the contract Article 3(k) code sharing. It states, “The Union recognizes that the Company shall have the right to enter into marketing, alliance or code-sharing agreements with other carriers under which US Airways may perform passenger service work for the other carrier, and/or the other carrier agrees to perform passenger service work for US Airways. The Company agrees that any such agreement shall provide for a fair pro rata allocation of work (based on enplaned passengers or other appropriate measurements) between CWA-represented employees of US Airways and the U.S.-based employees of the other carrier.” We believe plain language of the last bolded sentence limits the work share to “employees of US Airways and the U.S.-based employees of the other carrier.” We can conceive of no circumstances where 3rd party vendors could be deemed to be U.S.-based employees of American Airlines. NOTE: The IBT are NOT saying don't vote for it, but they are also not saying "yes" as the CWA. This silence speaks volumes in itself. If they were in favor, wouldn't they be cheering it on? Not speaking out is a big hint as to where they all stand.

Excellent post......welcome sideliner.

" 4-The Interim Agreement means that vendors can work OUR flights, counter and reservations and though it is only 18 months, just remember two things: 1) once vendors are in, it will be VERY hard to get them out and 2) the 18 months can be extended. Neither are good things. The verbiage "and vendors" is open ended without specific language of who/what/when/where/why and for how long."

Remember, yes, the 18 months could be longer and while you are waiting there is such a legal thing as " Past Precidence" and even if attached to contracts as amendments it doesnt expire. It is amendable as the contract would be! US based employee are not the same as vendors in this instance unless they were employees of AA or US.

 

[psa8979]

RezAZ. Welcome ! I'm assuming your LCC/CWA/PSA/RES ? IMO. Bait and Switch LOA /TA/ CBA for 18 ++++ ? months. Read my prior posts and tell your Brothers/Sisters to vote NO ! to NO VALUE AL / DP. Good Luck !

 

[Tim Nelson]

So, the cwa signed this but the ibt said the cwa isnt interpreting the current contract properly? WTH?
I hope our association speaks with one voice instead of the forked tongue of the cwa/ibt.

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

While an interim agreement for the merger is certainly important, the new contract is even more so. Going by the comments here and elsewhere, the CWA leadership is woefully out of touch with the members --- and their interests. That the leadership is so out of touch --- especially with airport folks --- can make one less than optimistic about what the leadership will accomplish in the negotiations over the new contact.

Scope protection (outsourcing) must be the primary concern. As I have said before (and will again), an extra dollar per hour, extra vacation week, or lower health insurance premium will do no good if the job are outsourced. Whether to PDT, Menzies, Swissport, or other carriers.

And hub people should not think this is just a concern for outstations. Right now, EMB-170/5 aircraft are considered "mainline" for the purposes of CWA staffing. CRJ-700/900 are considered "express" and are worked by vendors (including PDT). Imagine what would happen if all those EMBs in PHL suddenly became "express" for gate staffing. Many lost jobs at mainline, more jobs at PDT. Or Menizies,

 

[737823]

DCMS,
Do you mean E170/175 flights are protected under scope and in the current agreement count towards scope thresholds for staffing? A few years back I flew XW CRJ-200 to PHL and we arrived in the F concourse which appeared to be contact workers. All other times I have taken mainline or Republic E175 and arrived A/B/C which were US mainline CSAs and fleet. Does this only apply at hubs? In BOS they have separate gates and personnel for Express flying.

Josh